Case No.

99-CP-25-353 HAMPTON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Summons in a Civil Case Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiff, V. Pfizer Incorporated, 235 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 Defendant ____________________________________ TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this act ion of which a copy is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Ans wer on the subscriber at his office, Post Office Box 685, Hampton, South Carolin a, 29924, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service; and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time afores aid, the Plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the Compla int. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN Marion C. Fairey Amanda G. Steinmeyer Robert N. Hill 200 Jackson Avenue East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, SC 29924 (803) 943-4444 Toll free number 1-800-348-3805 By:_ _____________________ ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF October 12, 1999 Hampton, South Carolina IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF HAMPTON JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, V. Pfizer Incorporated, 235 East 42nd Street Jury Trial Demanded Case No. _99-CP-25-353______ Class Action Complaint Case No. 99-CP-25-353

New York, New York 10017-5755 Defendant. __________________________________ TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT AND YOUR ATTORNEYS: YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, brings this actio n on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as a voluntary class act ion under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and alleges: PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, is a resident of the State of South Carolina. [A] 1. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief a s to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. The above-named defendant, Pfizer Incorporated, (hereinafter "Pfizer") is a f oreign corporation, company or other business entity which has been and/or is no w engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or distributing an anima l drug called Rimadyl. [A] 2. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Pfiz er admits that it is a foreign corporation which has been and/or is now engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Rimadyl, a veterinary product. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are denied. 3. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, p artnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a resul t of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl with the exception of those i dentified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint. [A] 3. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Compl aint, except admits that Plaintiff purports to name as a class "all persons, cor porations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the Un ited States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death as a res ult of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl." Pfizer denies that Plain tiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under the facts and law applicable to this case. 4. The class does not include (1) the defendant; and (2) any active Magistrate J udge for the State of South Carolina, any Judge of the South Carolina Circuit Co urt, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court or th e United States Supreme Court. [A] 4. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Compl aint, except admits that Plaintiff does not include "(1) the defendant, and (2) any active Magistrate Judge for the State of South Carolina Court of Appeals, th e South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court." Pfizer deni es that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under the facts and law applicable to this case. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides within the State of South Carolina , owns property within the State of South Carolina and has suffered property dam age within the State of South Carolina. [A] 5. Pfizer lacks information of knowledge sufficient to form a belief a s to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore, those allegations are denied. Further responding, Pfizer denies tha

t Plaintiff has suffered property damage in South Carolina for which Pfizer is l iable to Plaintiff. 6. The Defendant has used the ports of South Carolina or the roads and other mea ns of transportation in the State of South Carolina to transport their products, including Rimadyl, into the State of South Carolina where they sold and/or distr ibuted their products to South Carolina residents or entities in South Carolina. [A] 6. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Compl aint, except admits that it has conducted business in South Carolina, including the sale of Rimadyl. 7. The Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in that Defendant transacted and continues to transact business in this state, has committed and c ontinues to commit tortuous acts in whole or in part in this state, and/or has p roduced, manufactured or distributed goods with the reasonable expectation that those goods would be used in this state and the goods were used in this state. [A] 7. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Compl aint, except admits that it has conducted business in South Carolina. 8. The Defendant has caused or will cause, and all class members have suffered o r will suffer, property damage as a result of the acts or omissions of this defe ndant. [A] 8. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Compl aint. 9. The amount in controversy exceeds one hundred ($100.00) dollars for each memb er of the class, and some class members have suffered and will suffer less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in damages. [A] 9. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Compl aint. 10. Venue of this action is governed by S. C. Code Anno. 15-7-30 (1998) and is ap propriate as designated by the Plaintiff in this Complaint because the Defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in any county in South Carolina a nd does not maintain a registered agent within South Carolina. [A] 10. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that it is a foreign corporation and specifically admits t hat it does not reside in Hampton County, South Carolina and that it does not ma intain a registered agent within South Carolina. In further responding to the a llegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Pfizer denies that venue is proper in Hampton County. In further responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Pfizer states that it resides in Richland Cou nty, South Carolina for venue purposes, as set forth in its Motion to Transfer V enue filed herewith. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied, except insofar as Plaintiff pleads legal conclusion regar ding the applicability of S.C.Code Ann 15-7-30 (1998) to which no responsive plea ding is required. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 11. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a resu lt of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl with the exception of those identified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint. [A] 11. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Com plaint, except admits that Plaintiff purports to name as a class "all persons, c orporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or inj

ury as a result of consuming or ingesting the veterinary drug Rimadyl." Pfizer d enies that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under t he facts and law applicable to this case. 12. The class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impractica ble. Upon information and belief, more than 1000 pets and animals have suffered injury or death as a direct and proximate result exposure to Rimadyl. [A] 12. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Com plaint. 13. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the class representative are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other class members and plaintiff is represented by experience d and able counsel who have previously litigated class actions and similar types of cases. [A] 13. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Com plaint, except that is lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belie f as to the ability and experience of Plaintiff's counsel. 14. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Common questions of law include the liability of defendant for manufacturing, producing, selling an d/or distributing Rimadyl. Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to, the available scientific and technical knowledge when Rimadyl was manufacture d and sold; the Defendant's knowledge or reason to know of the health hazards or adverse side effects of Rimadyl; the Defendant's failure to test or adequately t est Rimadyl prior to marketing the drug; and the Defendant's failure to warn clas s members of such hazards. [A] 14. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Com plaint. 15. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class members' claims and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts in that the Defendant's Rimadyl was prescribe d, ingested and caused harm to the Plaintiff's dog George. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated class members have suffered and will continue to suffer prop erty damage as a result of the Defendant's actions. [A] 15. Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except that it is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Rimadyl was prescribed to and in gested by Plaintiff's dog George. 16. Upon information and belief, the named Plaintiff not only represents a large number of class members whose pets and animals have been harmed or killed, but also, due to the defendant's failure to adequately warn of the potential dangers of Rimadyl, Plaintiff represents an even larger number of class members who have yet to discover that their pets and animals have been or will be injured. For t hese reasons, a class action is especially appropriate to promote judicial effic iency and to protect class members' interests and rights. [A] 16. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Com plaint. 17. Each class member has been or will be similarly injured by this defendant's acts and omissions in manufacturing, marketing, selling, designing, and/or suppl ying Rimadyl. [A] 17. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Com plaint. 18. Class treatment is a superior of the issues in dispute because joinder of whom is impracticable, orum simultaneously. In addition, method for the fair and efficient adjudication it permits a large number of injured parties, to prosecute their common claims in a single f it does not infringe upon the rights of those

class members who wish to opt-out and litigate their claims separately. The clas s action provides an efficient method whereby the relative rights of the class m embers and defendant can be fairly managed. [A] 18. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Com plaint. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 19. The Plaintiff owned a pet chocolate brown Labrador Retriever named George. [A] 19. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. Sometime during 1997, the Plaintiff's dog George showed signs of arthritis. After initial treatment that did not seem to help, the Plaintiff requested her v et to prescribe Rimadyl. This request was made because the Plaintiff had read bro chures in her Veterinarian's office and seen ads on television and in magazines touting Rimadyl as a "miracle" drug for canine arthritis. [A] 20. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. In September of 1997, the Plaintiff began administering Rimadyl to George exa ctly as she had been directed to give it. [A] 21. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. After taking Rimadyl for several weeks, a number of symptoms and health probl ems suddenly began to occur in George. These symptoms included, but were not lim ited to, loss of appetite, vomiting, diarrhea and bloody stool. [A] 22. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23. The Defendant was notified of George's adverse reaction to Rimadyl on or abou t October 13, 1997. [A] 23. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that in October of 1997. it learned of George's death. Al l other allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint not specifically admitted are denied. 24. As a result of the symptoms described in this Complaint and others that were discovered during a Necropsy, it was clear that George was suffering to the poi nt that he had to be euthenized. [A] 24. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT 25. The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, marketed and/or placed into the stream of commerce Rimadyl knowing that it would given to pets and anim als. [A] 25. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and sold Rimadyl knowing tha t it would be given to pets and animals. Pfizer denies that it designed Rimadyl and is without information or knowledge sufficient to a belief as to the truth o f the allegation that it "placed [Rimadyl] into the stream of commerce." as that phrase is not adequately defined. 26. The Defendant has sought to suppress, conceal, misrepresent and/or obscure d ata on the adverse side effects of Rimadyl.

[A] 26. plaint.

Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Com

27. The Defendant was aware or should have been aware of studies and data linkin g Rimadyl and its constituents with disease in animals, but nevertheless continue d to design, produce, manufacture, market, distribute and/or sell Rimadyl without any warnings as to potential health hazards or detrimental side effects associa ted with Rimadyl. [A] 27. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Com plaint. 28. Despite its actual knowledge of the detrimental side effects of Rimadyl, the Defendant failed to warn or adequately and sufficiently warn the Plaintiff and o ther class members, the public, governmental bodies and the Veterinary and Medic al community of the harmful and detrimental side effects of Rimadyl. [A] 28. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Com plaint. 29. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl, prior to manufacturi ng, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl. [A] 29. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Com plaint. 30. The Defendant published false and/or misleading information about the safety and potential adverse side effects of Rimadyl. [A] 30. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Com plaint. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE 31. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Compla int, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 31. Responding to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 32. At all times material hereto, the Defendant was the designer, developer, man ufacturer, marketer, deliverer and/or seller of Rimadyl. [A] 32. Responding to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and/or sold Rimadyl. Pfizer denies that it designed, dev eloped or delivered Rimadyl. 33. At all times material hereto, the Defendant knew or should have known that R imadyl would be used on pets and animals owned by the Plaintiff and class members . [A] 33. Pfizer admits that Rimadyl is a veterinary product, but except as s pecifically admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 33 are denied. 34. At all times material hereto, the Defendant designed, developed, manufacture d, marketed, distributed and/or sold Rimadyl which the Defendant knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was defective and would dama ge the Plaintiff's and class members' pets and animals. [A] 34. Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and/or sold Rimadyl, b ut denies that it designed, developed or distributed Rimadyl. Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. Defendants failed to warn, or adequately or sufficiently warn, either direct ly or indirectly, the foreseeable users of the potential hazards and costs assoc iated with the use of Rimadyl [A] 35. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Com

plaint. 36. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl. [A] 36. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Com plaint. 37. The Defendant systematically failed to represent accurately to the Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl and its constitue nts can pose a health hazard and injure pets and animals or that Rimadyl was defe ctive. [A] 37. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Com plaint. 38. The Defendant systematically failed to monitor and investigate reported inst ances of injury or death to pets and animals that resulted from the use of Rimad yl. [A] 38. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Com plaint. 39. The Defendant systematically failed to train, warn or educate, or inadequate ly trained, warned or educated the Plaintiff, class members or their Veterinaria ns of the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions to the use of Rimadyl in pets a nd animals or that animals on Rimadyl should be carefully observed for signs or s ymptoms of adverse reaction, even though it had a duty to do so. [A] 39. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Com plaint. 40. The Defendant systematically failed to acknowledge responsibility for animal deaths and adverse side effects caused by Rimadyl, thereby contributing to the f alse impression cultivated by the Defendant that Rimadyl is safe. [A] 40. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Com plaint. 41. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl, used for its ordinary and intended purpose, can pose a health hazard and/or injure pets and animals, whereby class members were induced to purchase and utilize such products. [A] 41. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Com plaint. 42. The Defendant at all times has failed and continues to fail to perform its d uties to warn and recall. [A] 42. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Com plaint. 43. The Defendant's actions, as alleged, constitute violations of statutory and regulatory provisions. [A] 43. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Com plaint. 44. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committe d by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class membe rs and were carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl. [A] 44. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Com plaint. 45. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damage.

[A] 45. plaint.

Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Com

COUNT II: STRICT LIABILITY 46. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Compla int, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 46. Responding to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 47. The Defendant has been and is engaged in the business of designing, manufact uring, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl. [A] 47. Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl. 48. Rimadyl, as used by the Plaintiff and class members was defective and unreaso nably dangerous, unfit for its intended use because of the deleterious, highly h armful and deadly effects it causes to the Plaintiff's and other class members' pets and animals. [A] 48. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Com plaint. 49. The Defendant reasonably expected Rimadyl to be used by animal owners such as the Plaintiff and other class members. [A] Pfizer admits that Rimadyl is a veterinary product, but except as specific ally admitted herein, the allegations in Paragraph 49 are denied. 50. The Plaintiff and other class members used Rimadyl in the manner in which was intended and expected by the Defendant. At the time of such use, Rimadyl had not been changed from the time it was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold by the Defendant. [A] 50. Pfizer denies that it designed or distributed Rimadyl and otherwise lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 51. As a direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff and class members using the Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Plaintiff and oth er class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages to their pets and animals. [A] 51. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Com plaint. COUNT III: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 52. Responding to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 53. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to class members, either direct ly or indirectly, that Rimadyl is unfit and unsafe to pets and animals. [A] 53. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Com plaint. 54. The Defendant intended that Rimadyl be used on pets and animals, and impliedl y warranted through the sale, advertising, and/or marketing of Rimadyl that it wa s fit for these normal and foreseeable uses. [A] 54. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that Rimadyl is a prescription veterinary product that is f

it for use on pets and animals. Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contain ed in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. The Plaintiff and class members, as foreseeable and intended users of Defend ant's product, relied upon Defendant's representations, skill, expertise and jud gment in assuming that Rimadyl would not only perform its basic functions as warr anted, but was safe, and would not cause injury and death to pets and animals. [A] 55. Pfizer admits that Rimadyl is a prescriptive veterinary product int ended for use on pets and animals that like any prescription product can have si de effects in addition to its benefits. Pfizer lacks specific information or kn owledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint relating to the Plaintiff's and class members' alleged reliance. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the C omplaint plead legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 56. The Defendant breached these implied warranties in that Rimadyl as designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold is toxic, deleterious, and highly ha rmful, and can and does injure and kill pets and animals. [A] 56. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured and marketed Rimadyl, but denies that it designed or distributed Rimadyl and denies the remaining allegations containe d in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of implied warranties of good and merchantable quality and fitness for a particular purpose and for t heir intended use, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer direct and material harm and injury. [A] Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. COUNT IV: FRAUD 58. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Compla int, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 58. Responding to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 59. The Defendant at all times in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distribut ing and selling Rimadyl knew that this product was and is hazardous and/or potent ially hazardous to pets and animals, and knew that it causes disease, injury, an d death. [A] 59. Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. 60. At all times relevant in marketing their Rimadyl, the Defendant falsely and f raudulently represented expressly or impliedly to plaintiff, class members, the public and the market that Rimadyl was safe. The Defendant suppressed and conceal ed facts that Rimadyl could be harmful, dangerous and deleterious to the health o f pets and animals. The Defendant knew of these dangerous propensities when it d esigned, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Rimadyl. [A] 60. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the Com plaint and specifically denies that it designed or distributes Rimadyl. 61. The Defendant at all times had a continuing duty to disclose the dangerous p ropensities of their product to the Plaintiff, class members, the public, and th e market, and the suppression of these facts constituted misleading and fraudule nt misrepresentations because Defendant published and disseminated information s uch as "testimonials," "success stories" and " fluff articles" publically and in special interest publications which represented Rimadyl was well-suited, safe an d highly effective for its intended use, and which were likely to mislead for wa

nt of communication of suppressed facts, including the hazardous nature and dang erous propensities of Rimadyl [A] 61. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of the Com plaint. 62. The misrepresentations, suppressions, and failures to disclose information w ere made by the Defendant with the intent to induce Plaintiff, class members, th e public and the market to purchase and use Rimadyl. [A] 62. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the Com plaint. 63. The Plaintiff and class members relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations as well as the absence of adverse information in purchasing and using Rimadyl on their pets and animals. [A] 63. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Com plaint. 64. The Defendant has continued at all times relevant to falsely and fraudulentl y misrepresent, suppress, and fail to disclose the dangerous propensities of Rim adyl, including the fact that Rimadyl has dangerous and deleterious effects on pet s and animals. [A] 64. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Com plaint. 65. The Plaintiff and class members, at the times these failures to disclose and suppressions of fact occurred, and at the time of purchase and use of the produ ct, were ignorant of the existence of the facts which defendant misrepresented, suppressed and failed to disclose. If the Plaintiff and class members had been a ware of the existence of the facts misrepresented or not disclosed by the Defend ant, the Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased or used Rimadyl, an d would have not suffered the damages and injuries alleged herein. [A] 65. Pfizer denies that it misrepresented any information regarding Rim adyl, and it is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of the Compl aint. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's suppression of facts and fai lure to disclose, and the continued manufacture, sale and marketing of Rimadyl, t he Plaintiff and class members were or will be directly and materially harmed an d injured. [A] 66. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Com plaint. 67. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committe d by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class membe rs and were intentionally carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl. [A] 67. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Com plaint. COUNT V: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 68. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Compla int, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 68. Responding to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 69. The Defendant has engaged in unlawful and deceptive trade practices that hav e injured the Plaintiff as described herein and upon information and belief, the se unlawful and deceptive trade practices were committed willfully and knowingly

by the Defendant. [A] 69. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the Com plaint. 70. The Defendant has engaged, or has had the potential to engage in similar unl awful and deceptive trade practices that either have or potentially could have i njured other persons or entities. [A] 70. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the Com plaint. 71. The Defendant's unlawful and deceptive trade practices committed during the operation of its business as described in this Count violated statutory law. [A] 71. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of the Com plaint. 72. The unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant impact the publi c interest in that they are capable of repetition, and upon information and beli ef, have been repeated against other persons or entities as alleged in this Comp laint. [A] 72. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of the Com plaint. 73. Because of the unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. [A] 73. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of the Com plaint. 74. The Defendant's willful and knowing commission of multiple unlawful unfair a nd deceptive acts in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or se lling Rimadyl, have caused injury to the Plaintiff and class members. [A] 74. Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl, but denies that it designed or distributes Rimadyl. Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. COUNT VI: EXPRESS WARRANTY 75. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Compla int, as if fully set forth herein. [A] 75. Responding to Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorpo rates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein. 76. At all times relevant, the Defendant, in order to induce the Plaintiff and c lass members to purchase and use Rimadyl, warranted and represented that its prod uct was safe for its intended use in dogs. [A] 76. Plaintiff admits that Rimadyl is safe for its intended use in dogs, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint . 77. The Plaintiff and other class members purchased and used Rimadyl on their pet s and pets and animals in reliance on the Defendant's above- mentioned warrantie s and representations. [A] 77. Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, e xcept insofar as Plaintiff pleads legal conclusions to which no responsive plead ing is required. 78. The Rimadyl distributed, sold and/or delivered by the Plaintiff and class mem bers were not of a character as stated by the Defendant, but on the contrary, we re defective and deficient.

[A] 78. plaint.

Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of the Com

79. The Defendant has received due and proper notice from the Plaintiff and othe r class members about the defective and deficient character in Rimadyl, and the P laintiff herein provides the Defendant with additional notice of the same. [A] 79. Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of the Com plaint, Pfizer admits that in October of 1997, it learned of George's death. Th e remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint are denied, e xcept insofar as the Plaintiff pleads legal conclusions regarding notice to Pfiz er to which no responsive pleading is required. 80. As a result of the defective and deficient nature of Rimadyl, which ry to the warranties and representations of the Defendant, the Plaintiff ss members have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their pets and . [A] 80. Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of plaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands a jury trial and prays that: A. The Court certify a voluntary opt-out class under Rule 23 of the South Caroli na Rules of Civil Procedure with specific appropriate common questions that addr ess the liability of the Defendant as alleged herein on a class-wide basis; B. The Plaintiff and other class members recover the general and special compens atory damages determined to have been sustained by each of them respectively; C. The Plaintiff and other class members recover any attorneys fees, witness fee s and other costs of this suit as may be appropriate; D. The Court grant such other, further or different relief as may be just and pr oper. Respectfully submitted, SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN Marion C. Fairey, Jr. Amanda G. Steinmeyer Robert N. Hill 200 Jackson Avenue East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina 29924 (803) 943-4444 Toll free number 1-800-348-3805 By: ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF Hampton, South Carolina October 12, 1999. is contra and cla animals the Com

**[PFIZER'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FOLLOW]** FIRST DEFENSE: 81. The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE: 82. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in w hole or in part, because the FDA has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over the matters asserted in the Complaint. THIRD DEFENSE: 83. Plaintiff's and or members of the purported class' alle ged purchase of Rimadyl was pursuant to the prescription of a veterinarian based upon that veterinarian's professional advice, clinical judgment, and/or opinion that Rimadyl was an appropriate medication to treat the Plaintiffs' animal's cond ition. Pfizer satisfied its duty to warn under the learned intermediary or "inf ormed intermediary" doctrine and the claims asserted in the Complaint are theref ore barred by this doctrine. FOURTH DEFENSE: 84. The claims asserted in the Complaint pursuant to a the ory of strict liability are barred by the doctrine contained in Restatement (Sec ond) of Torts 402A, Comment, and/or Restatement (Third) of Torts: :"Product Liab ility" 6. FIFTH DEFENSE: 85. The claims asserted in the Complaint pursuant to a theo ry of strict liability are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and or members of the purported class, by electing to provide Rimadyl to their animals, assumed the risks disclosed on the Rimadyl FDA-approved package insert, and Plai ntiff and/or members of the purported class waived and/or are estopped from asse rting any claim related to such risks in accordance with the principle of assump tion of the risk and/or informed consent. SIXTH DEFENSE: 86. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in who le or in part, because the utility of Rimadyl outweighed its risk. SEVENTH DEFENSE: 87. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in w hole or in part, because Rimadyl was designed, tested, manufactured, and labeled in accordance with the state-of-art and industry standards existing at the time of the sale. EIGHTH DEFENSE: 88. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in wh ole or in part, because the product was not unreasonably dangerous or defective, was suitable in the purpose for which it was intended, and was distributed with adequate and sufficient warnings. NINTH DEFENSE: 89. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in who le or in part, because they were caused by unforeseeable idiosyncratic reactions . TENTH DEFENSE: 90. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in wh ole or in part, because the Plaintiff and/or members of the purported class lack standing to bring them. ELEVENTH DEFENSE: 91. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Rimadyl is comprehensively regulated by the United Stat es Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Ac t, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder. Accordingly, th e claims asserted in the Complaint are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, clause 2, and the laws of the United Sta tes. TWELFTH DEFENSE: 92. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in w hole or in part, by the misuse of Rimadyl. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE: 93. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, i n whole or in part, by the doctrines of comparative and/or contributory negligen

ce or fault. FOURTEENTH DEFENSE: 94. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, i n whole or in part, because the injuries of the Plaintiff and or the members of the purported class, if any, were, in whole or in part, the result of conduct o f the Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class, independent third par ties, or events that were extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, and/or independent of or far removed from Pfize r's conduct. FIFTEENTH DEFENSE: 95. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose . SIXTEENTH DEFENSE: 96. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to mitigate. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE: 97. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support a claim for punative damages. EIGTHTEENTH DEFENSE: 98. Any of the claims asserted in the Complaint for p unative damages are barred because any award of punative damages would violate P fizer's rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Am endment of the United States Constitution, and Pfizer's rights under provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, and because South Carolina forbids the award of such damages for causes of action founded on strict liability or breech of w arranty. NINETEENTH DEFENSE: venue. 99. The Complaint should be dismissed due to improper

TWENTIETH DEFENSE: 100. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, i n whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class, failed to notify Pfizer of any alleged breech of warranty within a reasonable t ime after Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class discovered or shou ld have discovered any alleged breech of warranty. TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE: 101. The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred , in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported cla ss are not in privity with Pfizer, and therefore, may not recover upon any alleg ed breech of any alleged warranty. TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE: 102. The venue for this action in the South Carolin a Court of Common Pleas for Hampton County is improper. TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE: cation. 103. The action is not appropriate for class certifi

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE: 104. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction o ver claims on behalf of the putative class members who are not residents of Sout h Carolina pursuant to S.C. Code. Ann. 15-5-150 (1976). TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE: 105. Plaintiff's claims of fraud are barred, in whol e or in part, because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 9(b) of the Sou th Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that all arguments of fraud be pled with particularity. TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE: 106. The claims asserted in the Complaint under Sout h Carolina's Unfair Trade Practice Act ("UTPA") are barred, in whole or in part,

because the asserted claims may not be brought as a class action under the UTPA . WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaint in its en tirety, together with costs and disbursements. DATED: November [30], 1999. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P. by: [signature of Jane Thompson Davis] Michael T. Cole Jane Thompson Davis Liberty Building, Suite 500 151 Meeting Street Post Office Box 1806 (29404) Charleston, SC 29401 (843) 853-5200 OF COUNSEL: KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER, LLP Steve Glickstein, Esq. 425 park Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 836-8000 Attorneys for Defendant Pfizer Incorporated Charleston, South Carolina